Delhi High Court - Orders
Ali Asgar vs Govt. State (Govt Nct Of Delhi) on 28 August, 2025
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ BAIL APPLN. 2300/2025
ALI ASGAR .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Manish Kumar Vikkey and
Mr. Loveleen Kaithwas, Advocates
versus
GOVT. STATE (GOVT NCT OF DELHI) .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
ORDER
% 28.08.2025
1. First Regular Bail Application under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) has been filed on behalf of the Applicant, Ali Asgar in FIR No. 0290/2024 under Sections 179/180/3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 registered at Police Station Special Cell.
2. The Petitioner has submitted that he is in jail since 12.07.2024 i.e. for the last almost 11 months. Chargesheet has been filed on 01.10.2024 and the cognizance has been taken by the learned Trial Court on 18.10.2024 against the Petitioner and the main Accused, for the offence punishable under Section 179/180/3(5) BNS. The Charges are yet to be framed and the matter is pending for supply of documents to be Applicant. There are total 16 Prosecution Witnesses to be examined.
BAIL APPLN. 2300/2025 Page 1 of 7This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/09/2025 at 21:28:05
3. The brief facts of the case are that on the basis of Secret Information received by SI Vishal Malik on 07.07.2024, a raiding team was formed and the main accused, Ram Pravesh Rai coming from the side of bus stand near Sulabh Shochalya, was apprehended. On the search of his black colored bag, 06 bundles i.e. 578 notes in the denomination of Rs.500 each were recovered from the plastic kept inside the black bag. The recovered Fake Indian Currency Notes ("FICN") along with black colored bag, was seized and the present FIR was registered. Ram Pravesh Rai named the Applicant in his Disclosure Statement recorded on 07.07.2024.
4. As per the Prosecution, 04 FICN in the denomination of Rs.500 each was recovered from the house of the Applicant, which is highly improbable. There are no independent witnesses to collaborate the veracity of the recovery. In fact, nothing was recovered by the Police from the search of his house, but these Notes have been planted falsely in his house and the alleged recovery has been video graphed by the subordinate, on the instructions of the IO.
5. It is submitted that after effecting alleged recovery from the house of the Applicant, the Police returned to Delhi. The 04 recovered FICNs were deposited in Malkhana, Janakpuri with the seal SPL CELL SWR 3. The seizure memo of alleged 04 FICN reflected that 03 Notes were having the Serial No. 9RK 682443; while 01 Note had the Serial No. of 9RK 682442.
6. The case of the Prosecution was that 578 FICN of Rs.500 denomination (total amount of Rs.2,89,000/-) were recovered on 06.07.2014 from the main Accused, out of which 143 Notes were of serial No. 9RK 682441 and 178 notes were of the serial No. 9RK 682442; 111 notes were of serial No. 9RK 682443 and 146 notes were of serial No. 9RK 682445. Out BAIL APPLN. 2300/2025 Page 2 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/09/2025 at 21:28:05 of these 578 notes, 577 notes were sent to Currency Press Note, Nasik on 10.07.2024 for obtaining the Expert Opinion. The Currency Press Note, Nasik mentions only 577 Notes, when in fact 578 Notes had been seized.
7. The 04 fake notes recovered from the Applicant were sent to Currency Press Note, Nasik on 08.08.2024 i.e. after an unexplained delay of 22 days, which raises a serious doubt about the role of the Police. Moreover, in the Currency Press Note, serial No. 9 RK 682443 for one Note is mentioned, but there is no serial number is mentioned for the other 03 Notes, which again creates a doubt about the recovery of the 04 currency Notes from the Applicant.
8. It is submitted that Jeetendra Kumar, brother of Ram Pravesh Rai has been kept in Column No. 12. Investigations, however, are completely silent in respect of Raj Kishore and recovery of Rs.10,000/- FICN given by Ram Pravesh Rai to Raj Kishore, as mentioned in his Disclosure Statement dated 07.07.2024.
9. The Trial Court vide Order dated 18.10.2024 took cognizance against the Ram Pravesh Rai and the Applicant. The Supplementary Chargesheet dated 09.12.2024 has been filed wherein IO has specifically submitted that FICN of Rs.3 lacs rupees were recovered from Ram Pravresh Rai contradicting his own case in the main Chargesheet that Rs.2,89,000/- had been recovered.
10. The learned Trial Court vide Order dated 25.04.2025 has dismissed the Bail Application of the Application primarily by relying upon the judgment of this Court in Tabrez Ahmed vs. State NCT of Delhi in Bail Application 1490/2021 decided on 23.08.2021.
BAIL APPLN. 2300/2025 Page 3 of 7This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/09/2025 at 21:28:05
11. It is contended that this Judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case in which allegedly only 04 FICN, has been recovered. The recovery is doubtful not only on account of due procedure of seizure not being followed, but also from the Currency Press Note. The contradictory versions have been given by the Police in the main Chargesheet and the Supplementary Chargesheet regarding the recovery of FICN.
12. It is submitted that there are various defects and incongruities in the procedure of seizing the purported FICN. There is no other material on the basis of which strong suspicion can be aroused against the Applicant. The entire evidence adduced against the Applicant, is unsatisfactory. The Prosecution seeks to rely on the confession of a person. There is a presumption of innocence in favor of the Applicant as the Criminal Jurisprudence provides that no person can be held guilty till so proven.
13. The Applicant has relied on Sanjay vs. State NCT of Delhi in Bail Application No. 5302/2024 decided by this Court on 09.01.2025 wherein similar crime pertaining to Rs.50,000/- FICN, the Court had granted the Bail. It is contended that this judgment has not been considered by the learned Trial Court.
14. The ground on which the Bail is sought are that the Chargesheet already stands filed and the trial is likely to take long for which reliance has been placed on Gurbaksh Singh Sibba vs. State of Punjab, (1980) 2 SCC 565 and Sanjay Chandra vs. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40.
15. There are no allegations against the Applicant of ever having used the alleged fake currency Notes; therefore, at worst he can only be prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 180 BNS that is corresponding to BAIL APPLN. 2300/2025 Page 4 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/09/2025 at 21:28:05 Section 489C IPC. The Applicant undertakes not to extend threats to the witnesses or to tamper with the evidence.
16. A prayer is made for grant of Bail.
17. Status Report has been filed on behalf of the State wherein the details of the investigations have been mentioned. It is submitted that the Applicant has previous involvement in similar criminal case FIR No. 0157/2001 under Section 419/420/489B/489C of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at P.S. Raxaul, Bihar.
18. Considering the gravity and the seriousness of the offence, which is the well-established chain of criminal conspiracy in which the Applicant has an active role and that there is possibility of tampering with the evidence or absconding, the Bail Application is opposed.
Submission heard and record perused.
19. The main Accused was apprehended on the basis of secret information and 578 FICN were recovered from his possession. His disclosure statement led the Police to the house of the Applicant from where 04 FICN in the denomination of 500 each, was recovered.
20. It has been indicated that while the main Accused was Ram Pravesh Rai, but there is a full syndicate of the Applicant and two other persons, who distribute the FICN in the economy. The four Notes had been sent to FSL, which has given a positive report of Notes being counterfeit. Though it has been asserted that the serial number of 03 Notes which were of the same series, has not been mentioned in the FSL, thereby creating a doubt whether the Notes sent to FSL were the same that were seized from the Applicant, but this contention is a subject matter of trial wherein it needs to be proved if the Notes seized by the Police, was the same that was sent to FSL.
BAIL APPLN. 2300/2025 Page 5 of 7This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/09/2025 at 21:28:05
21. The learned Counsel for the Applicant has also vehemently contended about the difference of the amounts stated to be recovered from the main Accused; while in the main Chargesheet, it was stated to be Rs.2,89,000/-, in the Supplementary Report, the amount is stated to be Rs. 3 Lacs
22. It was also contended that 578 Notes of 500 each denomination were recovered but only 577 notes had been sent to FSL; thereby again creating a doubt about the recovery. However, the learned Prosecutor has explained that one Note has been sent to RBI, for verification. However, that pertains to the main Accused and cannot be considered as a factor for ground of Bail.
23. The Applicant has further submitted that there was a delay in sending the recovered currency note to the Currency Note Press, Nasik, and that certain contradictions exist with respect to the recovered FICN.
24. However, these aspects on which the focus has been put by the Counsel for the Applicant, in fact, are to be considered during the trial. Also, in the case of State of Karnataka v. Sri Darshan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1702 the Apex Court has held that a procedural lapse does not by itself, justify the grant of Bail in cases involving serious offences.
25. At this stage, it cannot be overlooked that the recovery from the house of the Applicant had been video graphed. Furthermore, offences of such a grave nature, particularly of the distribution of counterfeit currency, which has a destabilizing effect on the nation's economy.
26. In Tabrez Ahmed (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while dismissing the Bail application of an accused involved in a counterfeit currency racket, succinctly observed that the circulation of such fake currency notes is highly detrimental to the economy and hampers the financial regulation of the country. It has a disastrous impact on the BAIL APPLN. 2300/2025 Page 6 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/09/2025 at 21:28:05 economic system and is often used in the commission of other crimes such as drug smuggling, purchase of illegal arms, terror funding, cross-border money laundering, and human trafficking.
27. It is further contended that the allegations against the Applicant, are only of being found in possession of 04 FICN, but it cannot be overlooked that there is also an allegation of common intention and a syndicate being run by the main Accused of which the Applicant is a part. Further, the Charges are yet to be framed.
28. Moreover, even Section 180 B.N.S which makes the possession of FICN an offence, provides the punishment of seven years and fine. The offence Under S.180 BNS cannot be termed as a lesser offence, especially considering the ramifications on the economy of the Country.
29. The Chargesheet already stands filed and the matter is pending at the stage of consideration of the Application under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, filed on the behalf of the Applicant.
30. Considering the gravity of the offence and that the case is still at the nascent stage of trial when even the Charges have also not been framed, no ground for Bail is made out. The Bail Application is accordingly, dismissed.
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J AUGUST 28, 2025 N BAIL APPLN. 2300/2025 Page 7 of 7 This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 04/09/2025 at 21:28:05